Biblioteca Virtual en Salud

OBJECTIVE@#To quantitatively evaluate the trueness of five chairside three-dimensional facial scanning techniques, and to provide reference for the application of oral clinical diagnosis and treatment.@*METHODS@#The three-dimensional facial data of the subjects were collected by the traditional professional three-dimensional facial scanner Face Scan, which was used as the reference data of this study. Four kinds of portable three-dimensional facial scanners (including Space Spider, LEO, EVA and DS-FScan) and iPhone Ⅹ mobile phone (Bellus3D facial scanning APP) were used to collect three-dimensional facial data from the subjects. In Geomagic Studio 2013 software, through data registration, deviation analysis and other functions, the overall three-dimensional deviation and facial partition three-dimensional deviation of the above five chairside three-dimensional facial scanning technologies were calculated, and their trueness performance evaluated. Scanning time was recorded during the scanning process, and the subject's comfort was scored by visual analogue scale(VAS). The scanning efficiency and patient acceptance of the five three-dimensional facial scanning techniques were evaluated.@*RESULTS@#DS-FScan had the smallest mean overall and mean partition three-dimensional deviation between the test data and the reference data, which were 0.334 mm and 0.329 mm, respectively. The iPhone Ⅹ mobile phone had the largest mean overall and mean partition three-dimensional deviation between the test data and the reference data, which were 0.483 mm and 0.497 mm, respectively. The detailed features of the three-dimensional facial data obtained by Space Spider were the best. The iPhone Ⅹ mobile phone had the highest scanning efficiency and the highest acceptance by the subject. The average scanning time of the iPhone Ⅹ mobile phone was 14 s, and the VAS score of the subjects' scanning comfort was 9 points.@*CONCLUSION@#Among the five chairside three-dimensional face scanning technologies, the trueness of the scan data of the four portable devices had no significant difference, and they were all better than the iPhone Ⅹ mobile phone scan. The subject with the iPhone Ⅹ scanning technology had the best expe-rience.